I had to bend a piece of the Super-AGS that holds the screw in because when I tightened the screw before the bend it would tilt the Super-AGS back a little. Seem it didn't have enough clearance for air to get in.

Also did anyone notice the temp of the unit after a good drive and let it sit

 

Here it is.... Super-AGS on a stock car.

Peter
M7 Tuning
562-608-8123

 

Looks good...almost 13 ft-lbs of torque at the wheels from an intake.

Interesting though, it looks like an overboost run versus a non-overboost run. My car just dyno'd stock with nearly the same numbers as the super-ags run...done in overboost.

Butttt, I'll be a good NAMer and not doubt and not rain on the parade.

 

Ok, then I'll just make believe I didn't read your post...

 

I was wondering if you felt a low end increase in torque when you installed your super ags? I have a cold air intake and i noticed a marked decrease in low end torque as compared to the stock unit. I would be willing to switch to a ags-r or super ags if the low end torque is improved over stock

 

it's hard to tell because the lines are the same color, but do the before/after lines cross up top and power drops off over stock? I'd assume that's when the max benefit is, but it's not clear.

 

25 lb-ft of torque at 2800 rpm's from an intake?

You might wanna turn overboost on for the stock run as well.

 

Nardo here... Overboost was on for both runs. This graph came straight off the dyno comp. I was surprised too but me and the 2 techs saw
it with our own eyes. anyone who knows me from MU knows I wont BS this... or do u need to sneak up and take a pic of the comp next time?

 

Eh, hopefully someone who has bought a Super-AGS can get a dyno of theirs for us soon.

If I see more of these un-godly gains from other people with their AGS, M7 will have my money. It can be the "Jesus" intake...

 

Ditto thumper

 

Its amazing how these guys get their ***** busted for not posting numbers and then when they do post they get them busted all over again. For the most part it is the same small contingent of posters with a common denominator which makes one wonder about the motive or perhaps agenda. In any event the one thing we know is that you dyno 10 minis and you will get a wide variety of results. If the next guy with a r-56 does the same test the the chances are of the exact same numbers are remote indeed. They might even be better .

 

There is no motive or agenda, get over that.

You can't honestly tell me that you don't have enough sense to think a 25 ft-lbs gain to the wheels at 2800 rpm is a little rediculous for an intake?? I'm simply being objective and pointing things out. Like I said, I'd GLADLY spend the $350 if that is really how much power gain it gives. For that price, it better give that amount of gain. Hell, that will be the best bang for the buck at this point for the R56.

And its good to see that at least a few other people have it in them to question the claims. It's not whether or not another R56 makes the same exact numbers, cuz it won't. Quite honestly those numbers aren't very good, so I'm sure another R56 will be higher. I just want to see if they have the same sort of gain. Is that so bad to ask?

 

can anyone who has the super -ags installed (customer) please give me a reading from there but dino. did you notice a low end torque loss or gain over stock. I have a competing companies cone filter and noticed a marked low end torque loss, my but dino was good enough to tell me that. thank you.

I would ask in another thread but the only customer super ags thread was closed down.

 

K&N claims 53.71 HP @ 5900 RP for a Shelby Mustang cold air intake. Just something to think about.

http://www.knfilters.com/search/prod...x?Prod=63-2571

 

While I applaud any manufacturer posting test data that validates the effectiveness of their products, that 25 ft-lbs at 2800 rpm is hard to believe.

While I am sure that the manufacturer did not fudge these results, I would expect them to do several pulls to make sure this wasn't an anomaly and was, within reason, repeatable.

The fact that someone would just post these numbers without analyzing the results across the board is a little disconcerting..............however, in light of the calls for posting back up data, maybe they glossed over this glaring delta.

According to Alta, their CAI made "a solid" 10 ft-lbs additional torque over stock over 5000 rpm, and looking at their dyno, relatively nothing at 2800 rpm.

These results are in the neighborhood of those shown by DDM on their RIS. Again, the gains are seen well past 2800 rpm and are 12 ft-lb.

So the characteristics of this engine seem to show that the best torque increases reached with an aftermarket intake on the R56 are north of 4K rpm and in the range of 10 to 12 ft-lbs. Both the Alta and DDM show gains north of 5K rpm also. Both also show nothing at 2800 rpm.

So when someone posts a dyno, showing not only an extremely large torque gain, but an extremely large torque gain in an area where it probably shouldn't be, people have every right to question it.

I will go ahead and assume that several pulls where done and these results were duplicated - right?

 

That's exactly why I raised the point that it looked like overboost was on for the 2nd run and not the first. The character of the curve simply looks like that.

And yea, there was nothing about these runs being duplicated at all.

I applaud you for your logical thinking!

 

And i'm sure you expect them to have the whole the dyno installed in a hermetically sealed room, at 0 feet elevation, at the equator, with a NASA engineer that had just calibrated the dyno seconds before they used it? The point is, know matter what M7 say's or does, some people will question it. This could apply to any manufacture. If you are not there watching all the testing, then you have to take the information provided on faith, on ANY manfacture's claims.

 

The overboost question has already been answered .As one of our emplyees , Nardo , stated the overboost was on for both runs. Are you directly calling him a liar ?

Randy
M7 tuning

 

I did not notice any loss of low end torque with this intake. I don't know if it's me or the car, but I do believe I felt a definite increase in power.

 

Ummmm yea, and where did I mention the word liar? You guys are somethin else...

Since your just going to come on here and and say stuff like that, instead of answering our legitimate questions about your product...says a lot.

 

In the previous post the overboost situation was addressed and we said that it was on for both tests.

The you posted this after we cleared it up :

That's exactly why I raised the point that it looked like overboost was on for the 2nd run and not the first. The character of the curve simply looks like that.

Are you saying that you still beleive the overboost was not on for both runs and Nardo is lieing or do you beleive him when he said that it was on for both and you were mistaken despite the curve or whatever ?

BTW I notice you are in AZ do you usually attend the AMVIV events ?

Randy
M7 Tuning

 

I believe him, but it just seems something else is up with it. I'll state it again, I'd love to have a product that produces those gains, I'm just trying to get the most amount of info I can to make sure that it is an educated purchase should I choose to get it.

Nope, I've never been to AMVIV actually...it always falls at a bad time for me schedule wise...always wanted to go though. Was in England this year during it. Maybe next year...

 

Ok. I agree sometimes some numbers just do not add up, especially on here

As for AMVIV you should try to work it in .It is a really good time and a great way to talk to people that have lived with some of the mods you may be thinking about . I also find it is a good way to meet people face to face , much better than the net .

Randy
M7 tuning

 

Where are you going with this? What's the purpose in ratcheting up a bunch of absurd and hysterical inferences from my post?

The point is that I made simple comparison to the power results from two competitors dynos and something doesn't make sense. You can blabber on about hermetically sealed dynos and NASA and wild conspiracy theories but it comes down to this:

If I am in the market and I am comparing three intake systems, I can see that they all make about 7 to 9 hp and maybe a few more ft-lb. of torque. I can also see that DDM ran a series of additional tests. On top of that I can see what appears to be a large anomaly in M7s torque results.

If M7 ran multiple pulls, regardless of whether it was in a fricking hermetically sealed room or not, it would become more than apparent whther or not that 25 ft-lb is a benefit of their system or is an error. Period.

If the testing shows that it wasn't an error, than for just under $400, their system has tremendous bang for the buck.

As far as taking these numbers on faith - I will. That's why I pointed out the close similarities in the Alta and DDM systems. Their data is close enough to allow me to make a leap of faith and purchase their products. Unfortunately, a 25 ft-lb. bump where it shouldn't be casts doubt on the Super-AGS data unless someone shows that on repeated pulls, gains in the 18 to 25 ft-lb. range are possible.

 

in looking at the dyno plot I am having a hard time seeing a 25ft lb delta at 2800 RPM . Are you sure on that , it looks to be about 15 FT lb to me but I could be wrong.

Randy
M7 Tuning